Steve Toth’s Shocking Voting Record on Flooding and Other Issues

2/1/26 – State Representative Steve Toth is running against U.S. Representative Dan Crenshaw in the Republican primary for the second congressional district of Texas.

To date, Toth has run a largely negative campaign, smearing Crenshaw with half-truths and lies. When I posted a positive story about Crenshaw’s work in Congress to reduce flood risk, dozens of hired Toth trolls flooded Facebook with false negative comments about Crenshaw – all unsubstantiated.

Usually, when candidates have nothing positive to say about themselves, they tear down opponents. That made me curious. So, I investigated Toth’s voting record in Austin. Toth voted NO on every bill below. And…

On every vote, Toth went against a majority of Republicans voting YES.

Because bill descriptions can get quite long, I summarized them. However, using the bill numbers and their years in the table below, you can easily look up everything about them in the Texas Legislature Online website. (So far, I’ve only gotten through the 2021 and 2023 sessions.)

Steve Toth Voted NO on…

Steve Toth voted NO on all of these bills. What would you have voted?

Steve Toth:Bill #% Other Republicans Voting FOR
Voted against a hotline to report workplace violence HB 915 in 202383%
Voted against allowing people to affiliate with the political party of their choice.HB 1635 in 202394%
Voted against handicapped parking at polling placesHB 386 in 202392%
Voted against simplifying disclosure of election informationHB 4053 in 2023
53%
Voted against the Texas Ethics Commission educating people about its work, which includes campaign finance disclosureSB 62 in 202157%
Voted against sexual harassment preventionSB 2233 in 202181%
Voted against expanding water infrastructureHJR 169 in 202391%
Voted against oil well cleanupHB 3973 in 202153%
Voted against hurricane protection for the Gulf CoastSB 1160 in 202176%
Voted against military law enforcementHB 3452 in 202180%
Voted against economic growthHB 1392 in 202390%
Voted against highway improvementsHB 1392 in 202390%
Voted against cybersecurity protectionHB 4018 in 202170%
Voted against disaster response loansHB 2812 in 202177%
Voted against training for drug overdose treatmentSB 998 in 202389%
Voted against “Made-in-Texas” labeling standardsHB 2194 in 202383%
Voted against basic standards of care for dogs and cats bred in captivitySB 876 in 202372%
Voted against child-labor penaltiesHB 2459 in 202375%
Voted against penalties for importing invasive snake species HB 2326 in 202163%
Voted against tax relief for farm familiesHB 3241 in 202398%
Voted against online consumer protectionHB 3745 in 202180%
Voted against preventing sexual-harassment in the workplaceSB 45 in 202167%
Voted against uniform election dates HB 2133 in 202388%
Voted against higher qualifications for sheriffsSB 1124 in 202377%
Voted against making it easier for people with disabilities to voteSB 477 in 202369%
Voted against financing water projectsSJR 75 in 202394%
Voted against improving electric reliabilityHB 1607 in 202168%
Voted against consumer protections for electricity customersHB 16 in 202168%
Voted against making it easier to buy solar productsSB 398 in 202175%
Voted against making it easier for energy companies to repay repair expenses from Winter Storm UriHB 4492 in 202178%
Voted against property tax reliefHJR 102 in 202356%
Voted against reporting cybersecurity breaches SB 271 in 202398%
Voted against pay parity for Texas police officersHB 2297 in 202398%
Voted against the economic stabilization fundHJR 82 in 202183%
Voted against disclosure of occupational licensesHB 2404 in 202195%
Voted against improving state information technologyHB 4018 in 202170%
Voted against mental health fundingHB 15 in 202363%
Voted against the Texas University FundHJR 3 in 202388%
Voted against providing opioid intervention on college campusesHB 3338 in 202380%
Voted against bonds for a Brain Institute of TexasHJR 5 in 202156%
Voted against a Texas Epidemic Public Health Institute SB 1780 in 202171%
Voted against combatting human traffickingHB 3772 in 202359%
Voted against closing massage parlors involved in human traffickingHB 3579 in 202380%
Voted against training hotel/motel employees to recognize human traffickingHB 390 in 202178%
Voted against improving preparedness for wind/hail stormsHB 4354 in 202385%
Voted against requiring insurers to disclose prescription drug coverageSB 622 in 202373%
Voted against access to fertility preservation services for cancer patientsHB 1649 in 202363%
Voted against requiring health plans to cover ovarian cancer screening in annual examsHB 428 in 202179%
Voted against allowing clinicians to dispense cancer drugsHB 1586 in 202173%
Voted against updating voyeurism laws to account for hidden camerasHB 2306 in 202398%
Voted against making criminal sentencing data available to publicHB 3937 in 202377%
Voted against classifying highway obstruction by street gangs as a criminal offenseHB 1442 in 202381%
Voted against a task force to prevent organized retail theftHB 1826 in 202393%
Voted against minimum salaries for county sheriffsHB 626 in 202394%
Voted against requiring perpetrators of certain felonies to provide DNAHB 3956 in 202388%
Voted against requiring correctional officers to wear body camsHB 1524 in 202363%
Voted against increasing fines on those engaged in anti-trust activitiesHB 5232 in 202399%
Voted against cracking down on the use of AI to generate false sexualized images of peopleHB1896 in 202398%
Voted against speeding up DNA analysisHB 3957 in 202393%
Voted against dismissing controlled-substance cases even when tests proved no controlled substance was involvedHB 3686 in 202392%
Voted against creating a centralized portal for DPS lab recordsSB 991 in 202392%
Voted against expanding the definition of stalking to include previous family violenceSB 1717 in 202367%
Voted against handgun proficiency instruction for security officialsHB 3424 in 202388%
Voted against limiting physician liability for medically necessary procedures when patients give informed consentHB 3058 in 202387%
Voted against reimbursing counties for GPS monitoring in family violence casesHB 1906 in 202165%
Voted against preventing financial abuse of nursing home residentsSB 270 in 202195%
Voted against increasing punishments for criminal offenses against public servantsHB 624 in 202184%
Voted against creating a new offense for boating with a child while drunkHB 2505 in 202184%
Voted against ensuring accuracy of DPS databases of street-gang membersHB 1838 in 202172%
Voted against increasing the penalties for assault against a process serverHB 1306 in 202191%
Voted against installing climate control systems in prisonsHB 1971 in 202177%
Voted against making retaliation against a public servant a second-degree felonyHB 285 in 202194%
Voted against creating an offense for providing false or misleading information to the National Instant Criminal Background Check SystemSB 162 in 202183%
Voted against restricting the use of choke holds by policeSB 69 in 202191%
Voted against prohibiting entity names that falsely imply governmental affiliationHB 1493 in 202183%
Voted against making ballot language consistent with election ordersHB 4704 in 202376%
Voted against giving surviving spouses and children of those who died while serving in the US Armed Forced free access to state parksHB 1740 in 202397%
Voted against increasing homestead exemptions for surviving spouses of members of US Armed ForcesHB 4181 in 202392%
Voted against mental health services for vets and their familiesHB 1457 in 202378%
Voted against 100% property tax exemptions for totally disabled vetsHB 1613 in 202393%
Voted against employment training for vets HB 739 in 202168%
Voted against limited property-tax exemptions for homeowners with intellectual or developmental disabilitiesHB 3640 in 202393%
Voted against allowing local tax exemptions for day care facilitiesSJR 64 in 202359%
Voted against protecting landlords that evict illegal massage operatorsHB 3536 in 202374%
Voted against economic development programs that allowed ISD tax abatement agreementsHB 5 in 202385%
Voted against tax abatement for physicians who offered free services to the indigentHJR 25 in 202189%
Voted against pre-kindergarten HB 1615 in 202374%
Voted against sharing existing school-training courses with employees of child-care facilitiesHB 1905 in 202360%
Voted against CPR instruction for grades 7-12HB 4375 in 202393%
Voted against “career-investigation days” for high school juniors and seniorsSB68 in 202398%
Voted against school-crossing-zone protections for high schoolsHB 1263 in 202395%
Voted against allowing accredited armed-forces instructors to teach in K-12 public schools while they complete civilian educator-prep programsSB 544 in 202396%
Voted against prohibiting parents who injured officials at sporting events from attending future eventsHB 2484 in 202389%
Voted against “digital citizenship” instructionHB 129 in 2021 58%
Voted against child-abuse, family-violence, dating-violence and sex-trafficking educationSB 9 in 202165%
Voted against workplace-violence-prevention policiesSB 240 in 202369%
Voted against requiring health plans to apply third-party payments that would reduce prescription costsHB 999 in 202392%
Voted against extending Medicaid coverage for pregnant womenHB 12 in 202390%
Voted against allowing Physician Assistants from certain other pre-approved states to practice in Texas without a new licenseHB 2544 in 202387%
Voted against reporting maternal mortality data to Dept. of State Health ServicesHB 663 in 202387%
Voted against requiring assisted-living facilities to provide Alzheimer’s training to staffHB 1673 in 202382%
Voted against prohibiting nursing home facilities from misappropriating federal grants made to residents on MedicaidHB 1290 in 202395%
Voted against improving public access to occupational therapyHB 1683 in 202393%
Voted against including the names of people found guilty of child abuse or neglect in a central registryHB 2572 in 202366%
Voted against prohibiting the state from retaliating against employees who report a criminal offenseSB182/Amendment 1 in 202352%
Voted against expanding disposal programs for expired prescription drugs statewideSB 2173 in 202360%
Voted against a program to improve health outcomes for pregnant women and their childrenHB 1575 in 202387%
Voted against a training program for those investigating child abuse/neglectSB 1447 in 202364%
Voted against providing luggage for transporting belongings of foster childrenHB 3765 in 202374%
Voted against aid for human-trafficking victimsHB 2633 in 202171%
Voted against waiving driver’s license fees/costs for foster or homeless childrenSB 2054 in 202187%
Voted against a bill prohibiting construction of new assisted living facilities in Harris County 100-year floodplainsHB1681 in 202161%
Voted against a bill increasing penalties for felons in unlawful possession of a firearmHB4843 in 202382%
Voted against a motor-fuel tax exemption for food-bank trucksHB 3599 in 202397%
Voted against creating a Texas Space CommissionHB 3447 in 202386%
Voted against record-keeping requirements for used catalytic converter sales HB 4110 in 2021 63%

Actions Speak Louder than Hired Trolls and Campaign Platitudes

By voting NO, Toth boosts his “conservative” rating among some right-leaning think tanks. He touts that rating heavily, but…

Understanding what Toth voted NO on gives you deeper insight into the man and his values.

Toth Voted No On Flood-Mitigation

Toth represents the sand-mining areas in Montgomery County. They send much of the sediment downstream that reduces conveyance of our rivers and streams. Yet he has done nothing I have seen to help control them.

Even worse, he voted NO on Charles Cunningham’s bill (HB 1532) to create a dredging district for the Lake Houston Area in the last session.

He also voted NO on HB 1681 in 2021, a bill that prohibited building assisted-living facilities in Harris County’s 100-year floodplains. (See red entry above.)

One third of all the people in Harris County who died as a result of Harvey lived in one such facility near Kingwood Town Center – in a 500-year flood plain.

After the Camp Mystic tragedy last year when more than 135 people died in flash flooding, Toth even voted for the right to continue building kids camps in floodplains.

Get Out the Vote

Make sure you vote in the upcoming primaries. And make sure you get all your friends and neighbors out to vote, too. This will literally be a life-and-death election for the Lake Houston Area.

I’m voting for Crenshaw. I hope you do, too.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 2/1/2027

3078 Days since Harvey

The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.

How Crenshaw Saved Kingwood Project from Chopping Block

1/30/26 – A four-million dollar earmark secured by U.S. Representative Dan Crenshaw for widening the Walnut Lane Bridge in Kingwood saved the entire $44 Million Kingwood Diversion Ditch Project from being killed by the Democratic members of Harris County Commissioners Court.

U.S. Rep. Dan Crenshaw gives the thumbs up to the Walnut Lane Bridge project. Widening the bridge is necessary to widen the Kingwood Diversion Ditch (background) which will also help reduce flood risk along Bens Branch.

Crenshaw requested the funding in 2023. Congress awarded it in 2024. Then in 2025, the Democratic members of Harris County Commissioners Court passed a motion to reallocate all funding from projects that fell below the top quartile of their equity prioritization framework to projects in the top quartile. That was because inflation had eaten up 25-30% of the purchasing power in the 2018 Flood Bond.

Ramsey to the Rescue

At the time, Precinct 3 Commissioner Tom Ramsey PE warned that killing projects in Quartiles 2, 3 and 4 could have dire unintended consequences. The Diversion Ditch project fell into Quartile 3.

After the Democrats saw how much partnership funding they would lose by killing projects in the lower quartiles, they relented. In their next meeting, they voted to exempt projects in the lower quartiles that already had partnership funds committed.

That breathed new life into the Kingwood Diversion Ditch project because it included widening of the Walnut Lane Bridge which Crenshaw had already secured funding for.

Multiple Benefits: A Texas Twofer

But the project will benefit far more of Kingwood than just the people who live in Diversion Ditch floodplains. It will also benefit people who live near Bens Branch. That includes the Villages of Bear Branch, Kings Forest, Hunters Ridge, Town Center, Kings Harbor and Kingwood Greens.

That’s because widening the Diversion Ditch will take excess stormwater out of Bens Branch and allow water to move safely down the Diversion Ditch. The planned improvements will take Bens Branch from a 2-year level of service to a 100-year level.

Bens Branch and Kingwood Diversion Ditch
Kingwood Diversion Ditch in white, new outfall in green, and Bens Branch in red.

That means homes in the Bens Branch floodplains should be safe in anything up to a 100-year storm. Currently, the stream is at risk of flooding parts of its watershed every two years.

Twelve seniors died along Bens Branch in the Harvey flood who lived at Kingwood Village Estates. That’s a third of all the people in Harris County and a fifth of all the people in the state who died as a result of Harvey flooding.

When the Diversion Ditch project is completed, Crenshaw will have helped protect people and property values in approximately half of Kingwood.

Bob Rehak

Crenshaw Support Crucial on Other Projects, Too

The Kingwood Area Drainage analysis found that, based on the number of people who benefit, the Diversion Ditch project is one of the two most important in Kingwood. Another is the Taylor Gully/Woodridge Project which Crenshaw also secured funding for.

In fact, Crenshaw secured funding for 10 Lake Houston Area Projects in 2024 alone.

Editorial Comment: I interviewed Crenshaw in 2018 when he first ran for Congress and have followed his work in Washington ever since. The man is a warrior, scholar and leader. He fights tirelessly to improve the lives of his constituents. He studies issues. And thoughtfully and patiently explains them. There’s no way he could have known what Commissioners Court would do in 2025 when he proposed the Walnut Lane Bridge funding in 2023. Regardless, his proactive effort will improve the safety of tens of thousands of his constituents.

For more information including a timetable for the Kingwood Diversion Ditch Project, see this recent post.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/30/26

3076 Days since Hurricane Harvey

HUD Clears GLO of Discrimination in Distribution of Harvey-Mitigation Funds

1/29/26 – An investigation by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) found the Texas General Land Office (GLO) did not discriminate against minorities or low-to-moderate income Texans in the distribution of Hurricane Harvey Flood Mitigation Funds. The investigation reviewed more than 80,000 pages of documents.

Two Houston groups – the Northeast Action Collective and Texas Housers – claimed the GLO ignored Houston and Harris County in the distribution of the first tranche of Harvey aid. Houston and Harris County got $0 from the first $1 billion. But the Northeast Action Collective and Texas Housers ignored the fact that ALL of the next $750 million went to Harris County.

Moreover, the GLO announced the $750 million a full month BEFORE the two groups filed their discrimination complaint in 2021.

GLO Cleared

The investigation began on June 25, 2021. The Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity found that “no reasonable cause exists to believe the GLO has violated the Fair Housing Act, Title VI, or the Housing and Community Development Act through its administration of the 2019 CDBG-MIT funds, including the Hurricane Harvey State Mitigation Competition.”

Complainant Allegations

Complainants alleged discrimination on the basis of race and national origin, and that scoring criteria systematically and deliberately advantaged white communities while disadvantaging low- and moderate income (LMI) African-American and Hispanic communities.

GLO Defense

Looking only at the first billion dollars, GLO presented evidence that roughly 1.2 million of the 1.5 million Texans who benefited from the approved projects were Hispanic, Black, Asian, Pacific Islander, or Native American. The GLO also showed that 100% of the awards went to projects in majority LMI areas.

GLO also argued that complainants could not look only at one portion of the grants. Or look only at the first round of Harvey Grants and ignore 2015 and 2016 grants.

Findings

HUD found that the GLO substantially exceeded HUD’s requirement to direct at least 50% of funds to Most Impacted and Distressed (MID) areas. In 2015, 2016 and the first round of Harvey, GLO directed roughly 60% of all HUD funds to MID areas.

GLO later cancelled the second round of Harvey competition and allocated $750 million exclusively to Harris County. The County’s population is 42.9% Hispanic and 18.6% Black – a total of 61.5%. With other minorities, that brought minority beneficiaries for all phases to more than 66%.

CDBG grant spending recommendations
Location of HUD/GLO projects in Harris County as of 2024.

Thus the complainants failed to show a disproportionate impact on minorities. Northeast Action Collective and Housers failed to assess the share of total beneficiaries that were black, white or Hispanic compared to the racial demographics of eligible areas.

Even when looking at just Round One of the Harvey competition, “no reasonable cause exists to believe the GLO’s administration had a disparate racial impact on funding.”

The complainants focused on Houston and Harris County not winning any awards during the Harvey Round One competition. Another section of the 22-page legal brief deals with why. To a large degree, not winning any awards in Round One resulted from the Benefit/Cost Analyses of submitted projects. Smaller jurisdictions just had lower costs per beneficiary. (See page 13.)

For instance, one project submitted by the City would have benefitted fewer than 10,000 people, but cost $94 million. In other words, the City was seeking 18% of Round One funds to benefit less than a half-percent of the City’s population.

HUD determined that “Houston’s poor performance in the Harvey Competition is attributable, at least in part, to its expensive, low-impact project proposals.”

Conclusion

“The facts of this case do not suggest that GLO intentionally discriminated against any racial or ethnic group through its administration of the CDBG-MIT funds,” said the final ruling.

The complainants have 30 days to file an appeal. Click here to read HUD’s complete 22-page finding.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/29/26

3075 Days since Hurricane Harvey

The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.

Update on Two Kingwood Flood-Mitigation Projects

1/28/26 – People living near the Kingwood Diversion Ditch and the Woodridge Village/Taylor Gully area have been asking what happened to their flood-mitigation projects. Good news: Both are moving forward. Here’s some historical context, where the projects currently stand, and what comes next.

Kingwood Diversion Ditch

The Kingwood Diversion Ditch splits off Bens Branch between Northpark Drive and the new St. Martha Catholic Church. It runs down the western side of North and South Woodland Hills past the fire station on Kingwood Drive. Then it continues south past Trailwood, Deer Ridge Park and finally joins the San Jacinto West Fork at River Grove Park. Along the way, it goes under four bridges.

Neel-Schaffer completed a preliminary engineering study in early 2025. The company recommended widening the Diversion Ditch and building a new outfall to West Fork west of River Grove Park. They projected the cost to be almost $41 million, but it would reduce the floodplain size by 177 acres and remove 34 structures from the floodplain.

Diversion Ditch shown in white, proposed new outfall in green, and Bens Branch in red.

The improvements would divert enough stormwater from Bens Branch to take it from a 2-year level of service to a 100-year level. That’s good news for the merchants in Kingwood Town Center. They all flooded during Harvey and 12 seniors died at Kingwood Village Estates.

The project almost died last year when Democratic County Commissioners voted to redeploy all remaining flood bond funds to the highest scoring projects on their equity prioritization framework. However, they later reconsidered that motion. The Diversion Ditch already had federal partnership funds allocated to it thanks to the work of Congressman Dan Crenshaw. His earmark for the Walnut Lane Bridge saved it from the chopping block.

Now the project is moving again. In late 2025, Harris County awarded a contract to Halff Associates, Inc. for the final engineering and design of the project.

In its January 22 board meeting, the Texas Water Development Board authorized an agreement with Harris County Flood Control District for a $5 million grant that State Representative Charles Cunningham obtained during the 89th Legislative Regular Session. (See item 12.)

HCFCD spokesperson Emily Woodell said the District expects the design work to start by March 1. She also says that additional funding will come from EPA grants to cover design and the 2018 bond to cover construction. Woodell expects construction to begin in late 2027.

Woodridge Village/Taylor Gully

The Kingwood Area Drainage Analysis ranked the Diversion Ditch and the Woodridge Village/Taylor Gully Project as the two most important projects in Kingwood because they help the largest numbers of people.

The 270-acre Woodridge Village Project is the aborted Perry Homes development purchased by Harris County and the City of Houston in 2020. It lies north of Sherwood Trails and Elm Grove in Montgomery County. Except for a few acres on the extreme western end, virtually all of it drains into Taylor Gully.

Perry’s contractors clearcut the Woodridge site starting in 2017 and sloped it toward Taylor Gully. Then before they installed detention ponds and drainage systems, runoff from the site flooded up to 600 homes twice in 2019. Residents had not even finished repairing their homes from the first flood in May, when they flooded again in September. A massive class action lawsuit resulted in a substantial settlement for the victims.

Taylor Gully Flooding May 7 2019
Taylor Gully flooding near Rustling Elms on May 7, 2019.

Before purchasing Woodridge Village from Perry, HCFCD stipulated that they had to finish building all of the stormwater detention basins planned as part of the buildout. However, those detention basins only brought the property up to pre-Atlas 14 standards. They fell 40% short of Atlas 14 requirements.

Shortly after the purchase, HCFCD started building an additional detention basin to bring the total detention capacity onsite up to and beyond Atlas-14 requirements. Sprint Sand and Clay began the work under an excavation and removal (E&R) contract. E&R contracts give HCFCD a head start on production. They let contractors begin removing dirt for a nominal fee and then sell it on the open market to make up their profit margin.

Woodridge
Woodridge Village on May 31 2025. The beginning of a new detention basin was never completed or connected.

However, when HCFCD applied for a HUD CDBG-MIT grant through the Texas General Land Office, HCFCD was forced to pause the project. That’s because projects cannot change while the GLO and HUD consider a grant request.

Scope of project outlined in preliminary engineering review. Compartment 1 is in current bid and will take project up to and slightly beyond Atlas 14 requirements. Compartment 2 will be treated as a separate project in the future if/when needed.

HCFCD applied for grants to:

  • Expand a portion of Taylor Gully and line it with concrete.
  • Build another stormwater detention basin on Woodridge Village holding 412 acre-feet.
  • Replace the culverts at Rustling Elms with a clear-span bridge.

Fast forward: GLO and HUD approved grants for $42 million in October, 2025. HCFCD put the project out for bids. And proposals are due by Feb. 16, 2026. See screen capture from County purchasing below.

Screen capture supplied by Precinct 3 Engineer Eric Heppen

Even though the bid above is listed as “channel conveyance improvements,” according to Woodell, it also includes the Woodridge Village Stormwater Detention Basin(s). “Since Woodridge mitigates Taylor Gully, those two projects have been combined forever after,” she said.

The HUD/GLO deadline for finishing the project is March 31, 2028. That’s do-able if everyone hustles.

Additional funding for this project came from U.S. Representative Dan Crenshaw. He secured federal funding for Taylor Gully improvements in March 2022. And Representative Charles Cunningham helped secure state funding through the TWDB.

Press conference on status of Lake Houston Area flood-mitigation projects.
At a September 2024 press conference where Woodridge meets Taylor Gully. Left to Right, Harris County Precinct 3 Commissioner Tom Ramsey PE, US Rep. Dan Crenshaw, HCFCD Exec. Dir. Dr. Tina Petersen, Houston City Council Member Fred Flickinger and State Rep. Charles Cunningham.

More news to follow when we see the bids.

Posted by Bob Rehak on January 28, 2026

3074 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Trouble Researching Flood Risk of a Home?

1/27/26 – Are you having trouble researching the flood risk of a home? Yours or perhaps one you are considering buying? Worried that your flood risk may have increased over time? If so, the Houston Chronicle wants to hear from you.

The Chronicle is conducting a brief survey about flood risk. Investigative reporter Yilun Cheng found that 65,000 homes have been sold in Houston area floodplains since Harvey.

During Harvey, 154,170 homes in Harris County alone flooded. That was an estimated 9- to 12-percent of all the structures in the county. See page 13 of HCFCD’s final Harvey Report.

Of the 154,170 homes that flooded, 48,850 were within the 1% (100-yr) floodplain, 34,970 within the .2% (500-yr) floodplain, and 70,370 were outside of any floodplain – almost half the total of those within floodplains.

That troubling percentage prompted a re-examination of floodplain assumptions and flood risk after Harvey. The result was a massive effort by Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD) to update flood maps. But 8.5 years later, after repeated delays, new maps still haven’t been released. Compare the two timelines below.

2020 screen capture from MAAPnext.org showing release of preliminary maps in early 2022.
Screen captured on 1/27/26. Note also the new narrative about “FEMA is leading the process” in lower right.

And that’s one way you get 65,000 homes sold in floodplains since Harvey. But those are only the floodplains that we know about. That number could easily increase when new maps showing the expanded floodplains are released.

Has Uncertainty Affected Your Flood Risk?

That uncertainty, coupled with the constant need to build, buy or sell homes, could be laying the groundwork for the next natural disaster. The uncertainty makes it difficult to assess a home’s true flood risk and determine whether that’s a risk you’re willing to take.

Are you uninsured? Underinsured? Could you afford flood insurance on top of a mortgage if you suddenly found yourself in a floodplain? Could you afford a total loss if you flooded without insurance?

“Many homeowners don’t learn their property is in a high-risk area until after they purchase it,” said Cheng. “Repeated delays in the release of new flood maps have exacerbated that problem.”

“We’re looking to speak with residents across the Houston metro area, including Harris, Montgomery, Fort Bend, Galveston and other nearby counties. Your story could help others understand the risks and may be featured in our reporting,” says Cheng.

The Chronicle questionnaire has about a half dozen short, factual questions that should take no more than five minutes to answer. Please help. You do not need to subscribe to the Chronicle to participate in the survey.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/27/26

3073 Days since Hurricane Harvey

Natural Disasters Don’t Care About Partisanship. Neither Does Mayor Whitmire. 

1/26/26 – Progressives are wrong to critique local leaders for working across the political aisle on flooding: an Op-ed about partisanship originally published in the Houston Chronicle Opinion Section.


Houston Mayor John Whitmire (l) with Harris County Precinct 3 Commissioner Tom Ramsey coordinating first responders after severe flooding in Kingwood. (Personal image substituted for copyrighted Chronicle image.)

For eight years, I have hosted the website ReduceFlooding.com, which focuses on the need to reduce flooding in Houston. Pretty straightforward.

This also means I spend plenty of time interacting with government officials at all levels. 

People form governments to solve the big problems that individuals can’t. That is especially true for local governments. Municipalities provide police and fire protection, build and maintain water and sewer systems, manage garbage, repair streets and do all of the critical and unglamorous work of making a city run. That includes flood mitigation.

Recently, however, partisans have been politicizing local governments by insisting elected officials become involved with issues over which they have little, if any, control.  They confuse virtue with partisan purity.

Here in Houston, the most notable examples are the progressive attacks on Mayor John Whitmire.

I have followed the Chronicle’s coverage of extremists within the mayor’s own Democratic Party. They criticize him for not adequately towing the party line.  My understanding is that his cardinal sin was attending a fundraiser for U.S. Rep. Dan Crenshaw, a Republican. 

As someone who has written extensively about flood issues since Hurricane Harvey, I can tell you that Crenshaw has helped bring hundreds of millions of dollars in flood-mitigation assistance to the Houston area, including $47 Million for additional flood gates for the Lake Houston Dam, more than $100 million for San Jacinto River dredging, $80 million for Community Project Funding Grants to date, and approximately $50 million for Kingwood High School Flood Barrier. Crenshaw also played a pivotal role in securing $25 million federal dollars for the North Shepherd-Durham renovation project..

I fail to see the sin in working across the partisan divide to improve the lives of Houstonians. I have no problem with our mayor attending any event for any elected official of either party if it will help us get the critical funding that Houston needs to improve infrastructure and control flooding. Floodwater does not discriminate based on party affiliation. It destroys the homes and lives of Democrats and Republicans alike.

Before Whitmire was first elected mayor, he asked me to educate him about local flood issues in Kingwood. Then he asked me to set up meetings with flood victims and community leaders so he could learn firsthand about their needs. It didn’t matter whether they were Republicans or Democrats — they were human beings who needed help.

For the partisan extremists, however, purity is more important than solving citizen’s everyday problems. Their mantra has become “Whose colors are you wearing?” Blind obedience to the political party is more important than working together toward common goals that make communities better places to live.

And it’s about more than campaign events.

For instance, on a cold and blustery Saturday morning earlier this month, I saw a refreshing example of what it looks like when local politicians put partisan purity aside: Whitmire himself working shoulder to shoulder with more than a hundred volunteers to improve public safety in Kingwood. For this lifelong Democrat, it didn’t matter that Kingwood is Republican-friendly territory. What mattered was coming together to solve the problem of runaway vines taking over the median of Kingwood Drive. The vines were choking trees, spilling into the roadway, crowding traffic, limiting visibility, and creating a public safety hazard.

Kingwood residents have long recognized the vines as a nuisance. They dodge them every day on their way to and from work. To help control them, District E City Council Member Fred Flickinger has organized a series of trim-fests called “Median Madness.”

Vines had become especially troublesome in front of Kingwood High School – home to thousands of inexperienced teenage drivers. So, on that Saturday morning, more than a hundred volunteers showed up for “Median Madness: Round 5” to attack the vines in front of the high school.  Most of the volunteers were students from the high school itself.

No one wore a red shirt or a blue shirt. No clothing shouted political slogans. Everyone came with work gloves and work boots. To make their community a better, safer, more beautiful place to live and work. For the benefit of everyone — regardless of political affiliation.

And when the camera crews left and the press was finished covering the Median Madness event, the mayor didn’t leave with them. He stayed to help clear the vines and improve traffic safety — in blue jeans and work boots with lopping shears – like everyone else.

Like I said: critical and unglamorous work.

In doing so, Whitmire set an example of what public service should be. He put politics aside and worked with residents for the good of the community – young and old, male and female, Democrats and Republicans. He communicated an unspoken message about the importance of public service for scores of high school students.

I have seen this practice repeatedly with Whitmire. He focuses on issues that actually improve residents’ lives. He sees past the debilitating, divisive national dialog undermining trust in government. Even if it means toiling in miserable weather for hours on a Saturday morning.

In the end, our steady 76-year-old mayor taught everyone at Median Madness perhaps the most important lesson of all without saying it outright. He showed that we have more to gain by working together than fighting each other. Public safety requires cooperation not competition. And that’s a pretty important lesson. 

It’s a lesson the progressive activists in Whitmire’s own party still need to learn. 

Bob Rehak is the host of ReduceFlooding.com and Precinct 3 representative to the Harris County Community Flood Resilience Task Force. 


Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/26/26

3072 Days since Hurricane Harvey

How Government Secrecy Contributes to Flooding

1/25/26 – One in every five Texans lives in a floodplain, according to the first Texas State Flood Plan. We have the second highest number of repetitive loss properties in the country, according to the Insurance Journal. And 30 states have populations smaller than the number of people living in Texas floodplains.

The number of floodplain dwellers in the San Jacinto watershed alone exceeds the entire populations of 15 states and the District of Columbia. And it’s not all because of rainfall, flat land, or our proximity to the Gulf. Government secrecy compounds those issues.

Purpose of FOIA and TPIA

While governments at all levels pay lip service to transparency, the reality can be quite different. Journalists and concerned citizens frequently have their Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and Texas Public Information Act (TPIA) requests denied. Usually, the denials occur when they might embarrass someone in government. Yet that’s exactly why those two acts were passed decades ago. And that’s why we need to rededicate ourselves to openness.

State, County, Municipal Examples

Let me give you three recent examples.

Scarborough Land West of Kingwood

A Dallas-based company called Scarborough bought 5,300 acres at the confluence of Spring, Cypress and Turkey Creeks where they join the San Jacinto West Fork. Virtually all the land is in floodplains or floodways. The developer says the State of Texas is his partner.

Ryko drainage impact study illustration showing outline and floodplains.
Land purchased by Scarborough last year. All but the dark gray areas within the red are in floodplains or the floodway.

The Texas School Land Board invested an undisclosed amount of money for undisclosed terms in the development of the property.

The state has rebuffed attempts to discover why it is investing in the development of such dangerous property.

The Texas General Land Office oversees the School Land Board but has refused to clarify media requests and repeatedly appealed FOIA requests to Attorney General Ken Paxton. Paxton keeps finding reasons to avoid compliance with the spirit of the law.

The state even refused a request from a Texas representative. They demanded the lawmaker sign a non-disclosure agreement. The lawmaker found it so onerous, he said he refused to sign it.

Paxton has announced his intention to run for the U.S. Senate. And Dawn Buckingham, GLO Commissioner is running for re-election.

Harris County Flood Maps

The term “caveat emptor” (buyer beware) goes back 2,000 years to Roman times and became firmly embedded in English Common Law during the Middle Ages.

For people to know whether they’re buying land in a floodplain, they need access to current flood maps based on the best available information. But 8.5 years after Hurricane Harvey, Harris County Flood Control District has not released updated flood maps – effectively keeping buyers in the dark about their flood risk.

Houston Chronicle investigative reporter Yilun Cheng found that 65,000 homes have been built in Houston floodplains since Harvey. That number will also certainly grow when the County eventually releases new flood maps.

HCFCD has repeatedly ignored media requests for the new flood maps. The cover story is that their contract with FEMA prohibits release of the flood maps before FEMA vets them. But the County refuses to produce the contract. And other counties throughout Texas routinely publish “draft” maps, with the understanding that they are subject to revision by FEMA.

Romerica Land in Kingwood

Several years ago, Romerica bought more than 300 acres between Kingwood Lake and the San Jacinto West Fork. Virtually all of it lies in floodplains or floodways.

Yet the company has persisted in trying to develop it.

  • First, they wanted to build 25- to 50-story high rises around a marina that would hold boats too big to float on the West Fork.
  • Then, they wanted to build luxury homes on stilts, even though homes built on 25 foot stilts had already flooded.
  • Recently, they announced plans to build a 500,000 square foot, two-hotel complex surrounded by 125 luxury, 8,600 square foot villas.

Even though the most recent plan is on Romerica’s highest ground, the swampland still floods badly and repeatedly.

Romerica in May 2024 Flood
Location of Romerica’s proposed new development in May of 2024

When Sylvester Turner was Mayor, he reportedly instructed Public Works not to approve any building permits for the property. Turner had personally seen how badly that area flooded.

But now Houston Public Works has approved a preliminary drainage survey for the two hotels (including a Fairmont) and 125 massive villas.

Public Works also recommended a plat variance that could limit emergency access. And Public Works denied my FOIA request for Romerica’s drainage analysis and asked the Attorney General (AG) to support their denial. Regardless, I obtained a copy through another resident that Public Works gave the study to.

Refusing my FOIA request was hilarious. In their letter to the AG, an assistant City Attorney cited information I didn’t even request to enhance her chances of keeping the study secret. Public Works even refused to supply a copy of the drainage analysis to Houston City Council Member Fred Flickinger.

I have obtained similar drainage studies from Harris, Montgomery and Liberty Counties without such objections.

Illusion of Transparency

Usually, when people have nothing to hide, they quickly volunteer information. When they withhold information, they might have a valid reason. More likely, in my experience, they may have something to hide.

FOIA was passed in 1966 to shift the presumption of government information from secrecy to disclosure. Its core purpose was to give citizens, journalists, and Congress a legal mechanism to see how the government actually operates—rather than relying on voluntary or selective releases.

Before FOIA, government information was disclosed at agency discretion. After FOIA, disclosure became the default.

FOIA passed because Congress concluded that a rapidly expanding federal bureaucracy had become too secretive, too insulated, and too powerful—and that democracy required legally enforceable transparency, not voluntary disclosure.

TPIA passed in 1973 in direct response to the Sharpstown Stock Fraud Scandal. It involved so many officials that public trust in government collapsed. At the time, Texas governments considered transparency a courtesy, not a right.

Newspapers across Texas demanded reform. Voters were openly angry. Lawmakers feared losing office. Reform candidates surged in the 1973 elections. But according to many journalists and activist groups, transparency laws were imposed on a system that never truly wanted them.

Texas recently required creation of a searchable database of letter rulings under House Bill 3033, but as of January 23, 2026, Paxton’s office had only gotten up to 2023. None of the PDFs would open. And HTML files were unavailable.

Screen capture from Rulings website. Site froze when I tried to open first PDF.

According to his office, Paxton received 40,000 appeals of open records requests in 2023 alone. So, there’s no way to determine whether Paxton’s office exhibits a systematic bias for or against TPIA requests. However, 40,000 is a shocking number. It shows how frequently local and county jurisdictions want to keep matters secret.

Why This Matters for Floodplain Development Issues

Texas adopted transparency laws in 1973 for the same reason they matter today:

Decisions affecting land, money, and power tend to drift toward secrecy without legal force.

In floodplain development, appeals of FOIA and TPIA requests commonly cite the privacy of developer studies as the reason for not releasing them. But in my humble opinion once a government official stamps such a study “approved,” the public should have the right to see the basis for the approval. Anything less is government by secrecy.

In the case of flood safety, such secrecy can destroy lives, homes, and life savings. And the statistics in the first two paragraphs of this post prove it.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/25/2026

3071 Days since Hurricane Harvey

The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.

Romerica’s Preliminary Drainage Analysis Raises Many Questions

1/22/26 – Despite the City of Houston appealing my FOIA request for Romerica’s drainage impact analysis to the Texas Attorney General, this morning the City emailed both the analysis and a new general plan for Romerica’s proposed floodplain development to another Kingwood resident, Chris Bloch. Bloch shared his copies with me and they raise many questions.

First, Some Disclaimers

In fairness, before getting into concerns, let me state several things about the plans.

  1. The consulting engineer clearly labeled the drainage analysis as preliminary.
  2. Each page of the drainage analysis contains a disclaimer that says, “Note: The drainage plan is conceptual in nature and the final drainage design shall be in conformance with the latest City of Houston Infrastructure Design Manual.”
  3. Page 3 states that:
    • All structures will have an elevation two feet above the 500-year flood level.
    • All proposed structures will be built on piers to reduce the need for fill.
    • Dirt excavated from detention ponds will be hauled away from the site.

Questions Raised by Plans

However, the preliminary drainage analysis raised more questions than it answered. For instance:

  • It did not claim “no adverse impact” downstream. Why?
  • The drainage impact analysis was dated 2/19/25 and approved by the City’s Floodplain Group on 3/3/25. Why the long delay before making them public?
  • Why deny me the analysis, but give it to Bloch?
  • A Public Works employee told me the plans were based on new, post-Harvey flood maps. But Page 2 states that they’re based on 2007 maps.
  • With that in mind, the 2007 maps show virtually all of the proposed development in the 100-year floodplain. How much of that is now in the floodway? Neither Public Works, nor Harris County Flood Control District will reveal the new flood map for this development. Why the secrecy?
  • The drainage analysis does not show roadways or trails which have the ability to back water up into existing neighborhoods. Why?
  • The drainage analysis does not consider water draining into the area from Trailwood, Kingwood Lakes, Kings Forest or Kingwood Drive. Why? These wetlands already serve a flood-mitigation purpose that will likely be destroyed.
  • The drainage analysis conflicts with promotional literature provided by the developer. The literature, for instance shows the road network being built up to 60 feet and pedestrian paths being built up to 71 feet.
From Developer’s promotional literature for Phase 1.

Ground level varies throughout the development. According to the USGS National Map, it averages about 50 feet, ranging down to 46. So how much fill would it take to raise the roads 10-15 feet?

Elevation profile of Romerica land from USGS National Map shows average height of about 50 feet.

The general plan shows approximately 6,000 feet of roadway, with the streets alone being 60 feet wide . (6000L x 60W x 10H = 3.6 million cubic feet.) That’s 133,333 cubic yards of fill. Yet the analysis claims they need only 16,966 cubic yards of fill. And they won’t be getting it from the detention basins, because they say they’re hauling all that off.

So, how are they accounting for another 100,000+ cubic yards of fill? How will they raise the streets?

Next, where is the outflow analysis for the detention basins? None is provided. So, we can’t see whether they are adding or subtracting to flood peaks.

Dubious Benefit of Detention in Floodplain

And then there’s the biggest question of all. Will flood-plain detention that quickly goes under water in floods provide any flood-reduction benefit?

Floodplains already serve as stormwater storage during floods. FEMA considers floodplain storage already “spoken for.”

Still, detention basins are allowed in floodplains with certain provisions. Harris County requires basins to drain by gravity. But the bottom of these basins is 10 feet below the level of adjacent Kingwood Lake and 4.5 feet below the level of Lake Houston. So gravity alone will never drain these ponds in a flood. Pumps would be required. And electricity is often knocked out in floods.

What the Romerica Property looked like in the May 2024 flood. Water rose to treetop level.

And if new basins fill at the same time as the river, it provides zero peak flow reduction. That is why claimed floodplain detention is often illusory. Especially when the pre-/post- runoff ratio will increase almost 4X (Page 5).

Flickinger Wisely Pulls Variance Approval from Planning Commission Agenda

The City of Houston Planning Commission was scheduled to review a variance request today for Romerica. However, City Council Member Fred Flickinger wisely requested deferral of consideration until 2/5/26. That should give us more time to sort out these inconsistencies.

The variance request has to do with not connecting the east-west street to other streets on the east. That’s because there are no streets in that area. A Kingwood Country Club golf course surrounds Romerica’s property in that direction.

The delay gives us extra time to examine the rest of their plans.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/22/2026

3068 Days since Hurricane Harvey

The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.

Red Flags for EB-5 Visa Applicants, Projects

1/21/26 – EB-5 visas are a special type of visa designed to attract foreign investment in American infrastructure projects and create American jobs. They put foreigners with approximately a million dollars to invest at the front of the immigration line. I asked ChatGPT, “What happens if you get an EB-5 visa, but then the project you invested in never gets built?”

Fictional AI image created by ChatGPT

That opened up a Pandora’s box. Evidently, the U.S. Customs and Immigration Service (USCIS) and Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) encounter this problem frequently. Here’s what I learned after a day of online exploration.

What Happens If Project Is Never Built?

For applicants, the consequences depend on where they are in the EB-5 process and why the project failed. The outcome can range from merely losing their investment to losing immigration benefits or both.

EB-5 is not a “pay-for-visa” program. USCIS requires:

  • Capital to be “at risk”
  • It must create at least 10 qualifying U.S. jobs per investor
  • Those jobs must actually be created, not just planned.

If the project is never built, job creation almost always fails — which is fatal to the visa.

ChatGPT

What happens to the visa depends on how the project fails and at which stage. There is no automatic protection. Approval of an EB-5 petition does not guarantee the success of the business or the return of capital. And the U.S. government does not underwrite or insure EB-5 investments.

Project failure is far more serious than in ordinary real-estate investing. EB-5 investors can lose both their investment AND their visa.

Red Flags in EB-5 Offerings

According to ChatGPT, these red flags appear repeatedly in failed EB-5 cases/projects.

“Job Cushion” Based Only on Future Projections

A legitimate EB-5 project should show at least 20-30% excess jobs based on hard construction costs alone. Danger signs include that cushion relying on future operations, such as a “Phase II.”

Developer with No Completed U.S. Projects

EB-5 visas are based on execution, not vision. USCIS does not care about renderings, master plans, press releases, or “international experience.” They only care whether buildings were actually built, certificates of occupancy were issued and operations began. Many EB-5 failures reportedly trace directly to “First U.S. Project.”

Vague Exit Strategy

EB-5 investors are almost always unsecured, subordinated, and last in line. Beware of phrases in promotional literature, such as “Sale Expected.” Repayment risk for investors may be extreme.

Floodway/Floodplain Location

A project located in a floodway or floodplain faces extraordinary engineering uncertainty. If construction is not feasible due to regulatory barriers, USCIS can later characterize the project as not viable from inception.

Refusal to Release Drainage Impact Analysis

If the project fails, this can become a material omission under federal securities law.

A Maze of Shell Companies

A complex web of LLCs and offshore entities may obscure ownership, transfer of funds, and transparency, especially if some entities are offshore or owned by foreign nationals.

Major Hotel-Chain-Involvement Claimed

Major hotel chains do not attach their names casually to projects. Saying major hotel chains are involved is a very common misrepresentation in EB-5 disputes. Brand usage without authorization has appeared repeatedly in prior SEC enforcement actions. Demand to see a signed letter of intent from any hotel chain touted as part of a project.

Why Hotels?

Hotels create not only construction jobs, they create permanent operational jobs, too – housekeeping, front desk, food & beverage, maintenance, management and more. This creates what EB-5 insiders call a “job factory.” Few other types of assets offer this.

Jobs can be modeled and assumed before anything is built. Reality is only tested years later…if the project gets built.

Hotels are also easy for foreign investors to understand. The psychological simplicity is powerful. But in the absence of a signed management agreement, beware.

Moreover, hotels are capital intensive, accommodating large numbers of EB-5 investors per project.

Finally, hotels can mask fatal land-use problems. EB-5 developers often propose them on floodplain land and wetlands, which conventional lenders avoid, but which foreigners may not understand.

A luxury hotel can be proposed almost anywhere on paper. And the difficulty of such sites can obscure the ultimate pending failure for years.

SEC and DHS investigators call this model “the hotel shell.” It’s a known “failure architecture.”

How Developers Can Quietly Fail EB-5 Projects

Most EB-5 projects do not collapse dramatically. They reportedly begin and then fade out according to a common pattern:

  • Promotion with a glossy website, roadshows, and a conceptual master plan. Capital is raised before execution risk is visible.
  • As time passes, investors are told of minor delays related to infrastructure costs, drainage requirements, off-site mitigation, and rising construction costs.
  • The capital stack breaks (the order in which money is repaid if something goes wrong). EB-5 money alone cannot carry the project as lenders withdraw, interest rates rise, appraisals come in low, or construction bids exceed the estimate.
  • Then silence! No press releases. No construction start. Updates stop. Investors receive only quarterly status letters. This phase can last years.
  • Finally, the USCIS deadline arrives. No construction. No jobs. No recovery of investment. And visa revocation.

To Verify Whether Developers Have Actually Completed Projects

Do not rely on marketing materials. Do your own due diligence.

  • Ask for Certificates of Occupancy from previous projects. Crosscheck those with county appraisal records. Check improvement values, year built, and square footage. If improvement value is near zero after several years, the project has not been built.
  • Look for building-permit close outs. If permits remain open for years, that’s a red flag.
  • Check for litigation. Search federal courts, bankruptcy courts and securities litigation. EB-5 failures often involve investor lawsuits, SEC actions and receiverships.
  • And finally look for consistency of the developer’s track record. Be wary if completed projects are small (or overseas), but proposed projects are grandiose.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/21/2026 based on ChatGPT responses to multiple questions

3067 Days since Hurricane Harvey

The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.

Plat Variance for Swamp Development Deferred by Planning Commission

1/20/26 at 3:30 PM – Consideration of a plat variance for a swamp development scheduled for a vote by the Houston Planning Commission on 1/22/26 has been delayed until at least 2/5. Houston City Council member Fred Flickinger requested the deferral at 12:25 PM today.

Shortly after 3PM, I received confirmation from both Dustin Hodges, Flickinger’s Chief of Staff, and Vonn Tran, Director of Houston’s Planning and Development Department, that the variance request by Roman Arrow, LLC will be delayed as requested by Flickinger.

So, if you were planning to go downtown to protest the development at this Thursday’s meeting, save your time. Hopefully, we will learn more about the developer’s plans before the 2/5 meeting. You can attend then.

About the Development

Roman Arrow, aka Romerica, has proposed building two luxury hotels and 120 villas/condos up to 8,600 square feet each in and around the swamps between Kingwood Lakes and the Barrington, just east of Woodland Hills Drive in Kingwood.

Solid green areas represent wetlands. Source: National Wetlands Inventory. Roman Arrow land is outlined in red. They propose development in two phases.
Home of future half billion dollar hotel complex
View from current entry road during a month that received two inches of rain.
Romerica Roman Arrow land is virtually all in the hundred year floodplain (aqua). Although when new flood maps are released the floodway of the West Fork (cross hatched area at bottom) will likely expand north.

For more information about the proposed development see the their high-level plans and variance application:

  • Phase One includes a 297,600-square-foot Fairmont Hotel with 400 rooms and 90 condominium residences.
  • Phase Two includes another 226,085-square-foot hotel with 37 8,611-square-foot villas, each on one third acre lots.
  • Variance Request

For even more information, consult yesterday’s post.

Media relations at the Fairmont chain has not returned phone calls or emails to verify their supposed involvement in the Kingwood development.

Refusal to Comply with FOIA Request

I have requested the drainage impact analysis submitted to and approved by Houston Public Works. However, Houston Public Works says that it belongs to the developer, so they have requested a ruling from the Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton on whether they can release it.

My point of view is that once Houston Public Works approved it, the approval and anything the approval was based on became public information and should be produced forthwith. Attorney General reviews usually take 45 days.

Other government agencies, such as Liberty County and Montgomery County routinely produce such studies in response to Freedom of Information Act Requests. Houston must have its own policy. And that policy merits review in my opinion. It makes a mockery of any pretext to transparency.

Having said that, I know many people in the City who would produce it in a minute if something weren’t holding them back.

Posted by Bob Rehak on 1/20/2026

3066 Days since Harvey

The thoughts expressed in this post represent opinions on matters of public concern and safety. They are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Anti-SLAPP Statute of the Great State of Texas.